Something curious is taking place. The nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary
of Defense came under fire from the friends of Israel even before it was certain
that President Barack Obama would name him to the post. Hagel demonstrably
has no particular animus towards Israel but he, while senator, refused to kowtow
to the Israel Lobby, failing to sign on to letters and position statements,
saying that he was first and foremost a United States Senator, not a representative
of a foreign power. He also favors negotiations with Iran to end the nuclear
standoff, which critics immediately latched onto as a sign of weakness and a
further indication that he did not have Israel’s back. Bill Kristol, head of
the Emergency Committee for Israel, quickly piled
on to the Hagel nomination, followed by the Washington Post’s Jennifer
Rubin and Charles
Krauthammer, convicted Iran contra felon Elliot
Abrams, reliably liberal Rachel
Maddow, Harvard’s own Israel
firster Alan Dershowitz, Mitt Romney adviser
Dan Senor, and Johns Hopkins’ Professor Eliot
Cohen. Several critics, including the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle
Pletka, accused
Hagel of being anti-Semitic and Islamophobe Pamela Geller described
him as a "Jew hater." Transplanted American now-living-in-Israel
Caroline Glick somewhat more confusingly wrote
that he "hates Jews that think that Jews have rights." Major Jewish
organizations including the Anti-Defamation League and The American Jewish Committee,
quickly followed suit, with ADL’s Abe Foxman saying
"the sentiments he’s [Hagel’s] expressed about the Jewish lobby border
on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
and former president Jimmy Carter" while the AJC’s David Harris added "We’re
not in the opposition camp, we’re in the concerned camp. We’re going to count
on the Senate to examine, as it must, key issues of concern."

At that point a number of prominent American Jews who normally avoid any open
criticism of the Israel Lobby became concerned and began to push back, noting
that there was nothing to be alarmed about in Hagel’s record and that the perception
that Jews as a group were blocking a qualified presidential appointment might
create an unwelcome backlash. The counter-critics included
prominent spokesmen like Thomas Friedman, Richard Haas, Joe Klein, Richard Cohen,
Nick Kristof, David Ignatius, Aaron David Miller, and Peter Beinart and their
view would appear to reflect the majority opinion of American Jews, though characteristically
not the views of the leading Jewish organizations which are closely aligned
with Israel’s right wing government and to major donors like Sheldon Adelson.
To provide some space for the counterattack and to steer it away from being
a Jewish issue, some Hagel supporters began to note
that much of the opposition to the appointment was also coming from other sources,
including disgruntled Republicans out to "get" Obama and defense contractors
fearing budget cuts. Christian Zionists, whose unflinching
support for both Israel and military spending is linked to their desire to hasten
the end of the world and bring about the battle of Armageddon preceding the
second coming of Christ, are also on the list.

While applauding the efforts of many Americans to pull out the stops in support
the Hagel nomination, I would nevertheless argue that the attempt to identify
some kind of rainbow coalition in the opposition to Hagel is pretty much a canard.
It really is all about Israel, at least in the minds of most of those who seriously
are seeking to block the nomination. Consider for a second whether Hagel would
be facing any serious opposition at all if it were not for the claim that he
is anti-Israel and not predisposed to use force against Iran. And bear in mind
that Iran is really a subset of the Israel issue since it is Benjamin Netanyahu
who is driving the belligerency even though the Iranians do not actually threaten
the United States in any serious way. Consider also who is providing the muscle
and the money to attack Hagel. It is organizations like Bill Kristol’s the Emergency
Committee for Israel that was able to place a full page ad in the New
York Times on Tuesday denouncing Hagel as the "anti-Israel nominee
for Secretary of Defense." The ad was signed by former New York City Mayor
Ed Koch as well as two currently serving Democratic Congressmen, Shelley Berkley
of Nevada and Eliot Engel of New York.

Christian Zionists might not like the Hagel nomination but they are not to
my knowledge placing similar full page ads in leading newspapers, nor are they
appearing on television talk shows, to which they have little or no access.
Nor do they have the political pull to command the presence of hundreds of congressmen
at their annual conference, as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) is able to do. Defense contractors likewise are not attacking Hagel
because they know that it will be a collective White House decision where and
when to cut spending and Hagel will merely be the implementer of the policy.
They also understand that while budget cuts are coming no matter who is Secretary
of Defense because the government is running out of money they will continue
to benefit from large military appropriations, even if the spending will not
be growing dramatically as it has for the past eleven years.

No, the heart of the opposition to Hagel is in the hands of the ad hoc
groups pulled together by Bill Kristol and others, to include fellow travelers
in congress like Senator Mark Kirk, who explains why he will oppose Hagel while
trying to appear high minded: "I am concerned about his past record and
statements, particularly with regard to Iran and the U.S.-Israel relationship."
Kirk’s staff assistant Richard Goldberg has meanwhile been running an email
campaign against Hagel consisting of multiple messages sent daily to fellow
congressmen
and friends in the media while Senator Lindsey Graham, who has already described
Hagel as "very antagonistic toward the state of Israel," leads the
charge openly from the friends-of-Israel right where he is joined
by a "deeply troubled" Senator Kelly Ayotte who wants to see a "fearful"
Iran. It is Kristol and company as well as the politicians they have in their
pockets who have the ability to appear on television to tell the American people
why they should reject Chuck Hagel. They are the ones with the money, the organization,
and the media savvy to lead the fight against someone whose fealty to Israel
is not sufficiently established, not Pastor John Hagee and his mewling evangelical
flock in Texas. For Kristol and his associates it is indeed all about Israel
and it always has been. Every nominee to a senior defense, intelligence, or
security council position must be vetted and judged by whether or not they are
completely committed to support the Israeli government, no matter what it does
and no matter what the impact would be on American interests. That is what Bill
Kristol and his friends are all about.

And for those who still doubt that it is all about Israel, I would suggest
a little history lesson. In 2004 Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11
Commission, admitted
that the Iraq war was fought to protect Israel, which he described as "the
threat that dare not speak its name." He meant that if there had not been
the connivance of the Pentagon’s friends of Israel in creating a false weapons
of mass destruction narrative coupled with the fulsome support of the Lobby
a war on behalf of Israel would never have been endorsed by the American people.
And it is also useful to review what
happened to the last brave soul who dared to put American interests ahead
of those of Israel. That was Chas Freeman who was proposed as Chairman of the
National Intelligence Council during President Obama’s first term in 2009. Freeman
had an exemplary record as a public servant and was known to be an independent
thinker willing to reconsider and challenge orthodox policies. Freeman had served
as Ambassador to China and Saudi Arabia and was regarded as something of an
Arabist, which immediately made him suspect to the usual crowd in congress and
the media. For that he was immediately
attacked by Israel’s friends, in what was described as a "thunderous,
coordinated assault." The critics frequently pretended that they were actually
opposing Freeman’s views on China and his close personal ties to the Saudis,
just as Hagel is now being falsely pilloried because he lacks management experience
and because his wartime service in Vietnam will color his judgments. But no
one was really fooled regarding Chas Freeman – it was all about Israel. Freeman,
realizing that the debate over his views would become a distraction, asked that
his name be withdrawn.

What it comes down to is that we live in a country where nearly everyone is
willing to sell out if the price is right and, for the moment, Israel’s friends
hold many of the cards. Being openly and enthusiastically a friend of Israel
is a sine qua non on the path to power in Washington. In fact, Chuck
Hagel recognizes that reality. He has recently apologized
for his "errors" on Israel and Iran in an attempt to defuse the opposition
to him. And only last week Senator Rand Paul, who some of us had hoped might
break with the foreign policy consensus, visited Israel to burnish his presidential
credentials. While there he did everything that he was expected to do and more,
saying
that Israel’s settlement policies are "none of our business" before
adroitly backing away from cutting aid to Tel Aviv by noting that a bankrupt
America would not be a good ally. "This does mean that we have to reassess
who to give aid to, and when we do reassess that, I would begin with countries
that are burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America.’ No one is accusing
Israel of that." So if Rand has his way a gaggle of Muslim countries will
get the boot while aid to "good ally" Israel will be untouchable.

Far better that Senators Paul, Lindsay Graham and Ron Kirk should stop worrying
about what is good for Israel. They might instead emulate the Chuck Hagel who
once upon a time was willing to declare that he was actually an elected official
representing the United States and its people. Congress is the heart of the
problem, funding and providing political cover for Israel’s completely illegal
settlement policies as well as the iron fist apartheid-like control of the West
Bank and Gaza. As a consequence, the U.S. is widely and rightly blamed for underwriting
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and is no longer respected or considered credible,
but I guess for all politicians who want to become president real bad it’s considered
worth it. Well, I won’t be voting for any of them. The Israel Lobby wields enormous
power in Washington, but many Americans are becoming tired of having their affairs
micro-managed in Tel Aviv. Blowback is beginning and I would hate to see a bunch
of esteemed Senators finding themselves on the wrong side of history. That would
be a real shame.